Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality" presents a thought-provoking critique of societal structures and the origins of the social contract. Here’s a summary of his key points:

The Beginnings of the Social Contract
Fears of the Rich: In a state of nature, where no laws or government exist, the rich find it challenging to protect their property. Their fear drives them to establish a social contract to safeguard their possessions.

Appeal to the Poor: The poor, fearing death in a lawless state, find the idea of a social contract appealing because it promises protection.

Equality Rhetoric: To gain the poor's consent, the rich promote the social contract as one of equal obligation, creating rules that ostensibly apply to everyone. However, Rousseau argues this system legitimizes the exploitation (or “theft”) the rich perpetrated on the poor in the pre-law state of nature.

Rousseau’s Vision of a Social Contract
Formation of the Sovereign: Rousseau diverges from earlier theorists by proposing that individuals should not surrender their rights to another person (which he equates to slavery), but rather to the entire community.

General Will: He introduces the concept of the "general will," a collective entity that legislates for the new civil society created by the social contract. This aims to address and rectify the injustices of the previous system.

Rousseau's ideas highlight the complexities and power dynamics involved in the formation of societies and their governing structures. His work emphasizes the need for a truly collective approach to governance, where the power lies with the community as a whole rather than a privileged few.


Based on Rousseau's views presented in the passage, the best answer would be:

B. Those with more wealth would be at risk of losing it to those with less.

Here's why:

Rousseau posits that in a state of nature without government or law, the rich would have great difficulty protecting their property. This suggests that those with more wealth are at risk of losing it to those with less, as there are no formal structures to enforce property rights.

The other options can be evaluated as follows:

A. Their wealth would inevitably be equally distributed across the population.

This isn't consistent with Rousseau's argument. He doesn't suggest that wealth would be naturally equally distributed, but rather that those with wealth would need protection mechanisms like the social contract.

C. Property would not be hoarded by those who had the most power.

In fact, Rousseau indicates that property hoarding by the rich is a concern that the social contract seeks to address.

D. A social contract would be created in order to protect and support the poor.

While the social contract does offer protection, Rousseau's argument focuses more on the rich seeking to protect their property, not specifically on supporting the poor.

E. Property would only be taken if it had not been previously occupied and was necessary for the subsistence of those taking it.

This idea isn't directly supported by the passage. Rousseau's focus is on the challenges of protecting property in a state of nature and the resulting creation of the social contract.